RIAA sues student for $675,000 Illegal downloads

[gtbuba]

I heard today that The RIAA sued a college student in Boston $675,000
for illegally download and sharing 30 songs. ........Man that's gonna
leave a mark. Do you think this will save the recording industry?
That's $22500.00 per song. I hope they were good tunes.

[Steve King]

"gtbuba" <glenn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f4e2c027-c4db-4a6e...@w10g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...

The suit has been going on for a long time. A higher court ruled upholding
the lower court's ruling and imposition of the fine. The supreme court
refused without comment to hear the appeal. At least that's what I remember
from the radio news report I heard today. So, you want it free and want to
pass it around to your friends? Maybe not such a good idea.

Steve KIng

[hank alrich]

It's easy to see the "thirty songs" and think we're talking about thirty
units. What's actually in play is making thirty songs available for
others to download by the millions.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[Ty Ford]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 23:54:06 -0400, hank alrich wrote
(in article <1kkgpzq.147edg8szybh0N%walk...@nv.net>):

> Steve King <steveSP...@stevekingSPAMBLOCK.net> wrote:
>
>> "gtbuba" <glenn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:f4e2c027-c4db-4a6e...@w10g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
>>> I heard today that The RIAA sued a college student in Boston $675,000
>>> for illegally download and sharing 30 songs. ........Man that's gonna
>>> leave a mark. Do you think this will save the recording industry?
>>> That's $22500.00 per song. I hope they were good tunes.
>>
>> The suit has been going on for a long time. A higher court ruled upholding
>> the lower court's ruling and imposition of the fine. The supreme court
>> refused without comment to hear the appeal. At least that's what I remember
>> from the radio news report I heard today. So, you want it free and want to
>> pass it around to your friends? Maybe not such a good idea.
>>
>> Steve KIng
>
> It's easy to see the "thirty songs" and think we're talking about thirty
> units. What's actually in play is making thirty songs available for
> others to download by the millions.

Theft by any other name is still theft.

Regards,

Ty Ford



Try my new blog; http://tyfordaudiovideo.blogspot.com/
Try my audio sample archive: http://tinyurl.com/796z25d
Try my gear reviews: http://tinyurl.com/79q797r

[Les Cargill]

Ty Ford wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2012 23:54:06 -0400, hank alrich wrote
> (in article<1kkgpzq.147edg8szybh0N%walk...@nv.net>):
>
>> Steve King<steveSP...@stevekingSPAMBLOCK.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "gtbuba"<glenn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:f4e2c027-c4db-4a6e...@w10g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
>>>> I heard today that The RIAA sued a college student in Boston $675,000
>>>> for illegally download and sharing 30 songs. ........Man that's gonna
>>>> leave a mark. Do you think this will save the recording industry?
>>>> That's $22500.00 per song. I hope they were good tunes.
>>>
>>> The suit has been going on for a long time. A higher court ruled upholding
>>> the lower court's ruling and imposition of the fine. The supreme court
>>> refused without comment to hear the appeal. At least that's what I remember
>>> from the radio news report I heard today. So, you want it free and want to
>>> pass it around to your friends? Maybe not such a good idea.
>>>
>>> Steve KIng
>>
>> It's easy to see the "thirty songs" and think we're talking about thirty
>> units. What's actually in play is making thirty songs available for
>> others to download by the millions.
>
> Theft by any other name is still theft.
>

Privilege by any other name is still privilege.

> Regards,
>
> Ty Ford
>
>
>
> Try my new blog; http://tyfordaudiovideo.blogspot.com/
> Try my audio sample archive: http://tinyurl.com/796z25d
> Try my gear reviews: http://tinyurl.com/79q797r
>

--
Les Cargill

[hank alrich]

Les Cargill <lcarg...@comcast.com> wrote:

> Ty Ford wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 May 2012 23:54:06 -0400, hank alrich wrote

> >> It's easy to see the "thirty songs" and think we're talking about thirty
> >> units. What's actually in play is making thirty songs available for
> >> others to download by the millions.
> >
> > Theft by any other name is still theft.
> >
>
> Privilege by any other name is still privilege.

I am privileged to have to pay for most of my food. Same for many other
aspects of life support, some necessary at the fundamental level, and
some optional.

There is nothing as inedible as a downloaded tomato.

[Jenn]

In article <jpgi4k$b65$1...@dont-email.me>,

Sorry, I don't understand your statement.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[Les Cargill]

I am sure you don't!

--
Les Cargill

[Jenn]

In article <jph4jb$99p$2...@dont-email.me>,

OK.....?

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[Les Cargill]

hank alrich wrote:
> Les Cargill<lcarg...@comcast.com> wrote:
>
>> Ty Ford wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 May 2012 23:54:06 -0400, hank alrich wrote
>
>>>> It's easy to see the "thirty songs" and think we're talking about thirty
>>>> units. What's actually in play is making thirty songs available for
>>>> others to download by the millions.
>>>
>>> Theft by any other name is still theft.
>>>
>>
>> Privilege by any other name is still privilege.
>
> I am privileged to have to pay for most of my food. Same for many other
> aspects of life support, some necessary at the fundamental level, and
> some optional.
>
> There is nothing as inedible as a downloaded tomato.
>

Copyright is still an explicit legal privilege, in exactly
the same sense as royal land grant was an explicit legal
privilege.

Food is a rival good. That means the stealing of it deprives the owner
of something. There's a clear tort. The historical more-setting for
having stealing a tomato be wrong is older and better
established.

I don't think downloading is *right*, but I don't
think it's particularly theft, either. it's something
else. My niggle is still with the word "theft".

My problem is when they put somebody in jail for
copyright. I don't care for the government, which
represents me, to do that.

I'd make 'em do 30 days karaoke myself... *bad*
karaoke...

--
Les Cargill

[Jenn]

In article <jph56e$db2$1...@dont-email.me>,

Les Cargill <lcarg...@comcast.com> wrote:

> hank alrich wrote:
> > Les Cargill<lcarg...@comcast.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Ty Ford wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 21 May 2012 23:54:06 -0400, hank alrich wrote
> >
> >>>> It's easy to see the "thirty songs" and think we're talking about thirty
> >>>> units. What's actually in play is making thirty songs available for
> >>>> others to download by the millions.
> >>>
> >>> Theft by any other name is still theft.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Privilege by any other name is still privilege.
> >
> > I am privileged to have to pay for most of my food. Same for many other
> > aspects of life support, some necessary at the fundamental level, and
> > some optional.
> >
> > There is nothing as inedible as a downloaded tomato.
> >
>
>
> Copyright is still an explicit legal privilege, in exactly
> the same sense as royal land grant was an explicit legal
> privilege.
>
> Food is a rival good. That means the stealing of it deprives the owner
> of something. There's a clear tort. The historical more-setting for
> having stealing a tomato be wrong is older and better
> established.
>
> I don't think downloading is *right*, but I don't
> think it's particularly theft, either. it's something
> else. My niggle is still with the word "theft".

We either value the artist's/producer's/engineer's/composer's/truck
driver's/retail clerk's/et al's product, or we don't, just as in the
tomato. If it has value, it is theft to take it without the owner's
permission.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[PStamler]

You want a word with different connotation from "theft"? How about
"exploitation"? As in "giving away the fruit of someone else's labor
without compensation is exploitation."

Peace,
Paul

[david gourley]

Jenn <jennconduct...@mac.com> said...news:jennconductsREMOVETHIS-
849377.154...@news.eternal-september.org:

> In article <jph4jb$99p$2...@dont-email.me>,
> Les Cargill <lcarg...@comcast.com> wrote:
>
>> Jenn wrote:
>> > In article<jpgi4k$b65$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> > Les Cargill<lcarg...@comcast.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Ty Ford wrote:
>> >>> On Mon, 21 May 2012 23:54:06 -0400, hank alrich wrote
>> >>> (in article<1kkgpzq.147edg8szybh0N%walk...@nv.net>):
>> >>>
>> >>>> Steve King<steveSP...@stevekingSPAMBLOCK.net> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> "gtbuba"<glenn...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>> >>>>> news:f4e2c027-c4db-4a6e-8e3e-7ba5f80c2705

Honestly, I did not understand it either !

david

[Trevor]

"PStamler" <psta...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:871c079f-deea-4c56...@j3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

> You want a word with different connotation from "theft"? How about
> "exploitation"? As in "giving away the fruit of someone else's labor
> without compensation is exploitation."

That's more like it. Sort of similar to how some companies exploited many of
the artists then?

Trevor.

[Jenn]

In article <XnsA05BCDF186B...@88.198.244.100>,

Cool insult though, huh?

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[Les Cargill]

Nah, wasn't an insult. I've just noticed that people who derive
income from the arts tend to have certain biases. No offense
intended. if it was my rice bowl, I might be the same way.

--
Les Cargill

[Jenn]

In article <jphblu$hm1$1...@dont-email.me>,

Thanks for that, Les. But yes, I have a bias: being paid for my work.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[Don Y]

Hi Jennifer,

On 5/22/2012 3:57 PM, Jenn wrote:

> We either value the artist's/producer's/engineer's/composer's/truck
> driver's/retail clerk's/et al's product, or we don't, just as in the
> tomato. If it has value, it is theft to take it without the owner's
> permission.

IMO, the problem (with all IP -- not just copyright) is the
term (time) involved. And, how it has been systematically
manipulated by "owners" with deep pockets (e.g., a certain
round-eared mouse).

Nowhere has this *hurt* the public (IMO) more than with patent
protection on *software* (in a field where everything changes
at 18 *month* intervals, why give an invention 17 *years* of
"protected monopoly"??) Consider, patents were originally of
shorter term (14 years) in an economy where an individual's
lifetime and the time required to *fabricate* that "anything"
was considerably *longer* (relatively speaking).

Note that these monopolies (whether from copyright or patent)
haven't really benefitted the "public" but, rather, have
helped keep prices inflated. Witness how the price of
generic drugs drops precipitously once the ethical
(name brand) version goes off patent. Or, how a $4 LP in
the late 70's became a $15 CD 15 years later -- despite the
fact that the production, shipping and warranty costs
dropped significantly in that same period.

It seems the folks complaining most about piracy are the
"middle men" -- folks who will have an increasingly difficult
time justifying their roles in the future economy :-/

[gtbuba]

I don't understand why they didn't do it sooner. Of course it's
impossible to predict what the file sharing was going to do to this
business. I remember in the 1980's and the DAT came out and the
record companies were worried about someone with a Dat could make
perfect copies bootleg cd's. Ended up the Dat never sold in the
consumer market, but we engineers used it to mix to. GT.

[Jenn]

In article <jphc0v$maf$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Don Y <th...@isnotme.com>
wrote:

> Hi Jennifer,
>
> On 5/22/2012 3:57 PM, Jenn wrote:
>
> > We either value the artist's/producer's/engineer's/composer's/truck
> > driver's/retail clerk's/et al's product, or we don't, just as in the
> > tomato. If it has value, it is theft to take it without the owner's
> > permission.
>
> IMO, the problem (with all IP -- not just copyright) is the
> term (time) involved. And, how it has been systematically
> manipulated by "owners" with deep pockets (e.g., a certain
> round-eared mouse).
>
> Nowhere has this *hurt* the public (IMO) more than with patent
> protection on *software* (in a field where everything changes
> at 18 *month* intervals, why give an invention 17 *years* of
> "protected monopoly"??) Consider, patents were originally of
> shorter term (14 years) in an economy where an individual's
> lifetime and the time required to *fabricate* that "anything"
> was considerably *longer* (relatively speaking).

I don't understand this. Am I to cease getting paid for my work once a
certain time has passed?

>
> Note that these monopolies (whether from copyright or patent)
> haven't really benefitted the "public" but, rather, have
> helped keep prices inflated. Witness how the price of
> generic drugs drops precipitously once the ethical
> (name brand) version goes off patent. Or, how a $4 LP in
> the late 70's became a $15 CD 15 years later -- despite the
> fact that the production, shipping and warranty costs
> dropped significantly in that same period.

Seems like a case of demand determining price.

>
> It seems the folks complaining most about piracy are the
> "middle men" -- folks who will have an increasingly difficult
> time justifying their roles in the future economy :-/

OK, you're entitled. I just want my work to be given away without my
permission. You probably feel the same way.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[Les Cargill]

Get the money up front :)


but it remains something that you and a randomly chosen person
could remain perfectly divided about for all time. It's
One of Those.

--
Les Cargill

[MarkK]

regarding the word "theft"

From a __legal__ definition point of view, "copyright infringment' is NOT
the same as "theft"

You can decide your own personal __moral__ defintion.

from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement

"Copyright infringement is often associated with the terms piracy and theft.
Although piracy connotes brazen high-seas robbery and kidnapping, it has a
long history of use as a synonym for certain acts which were later codified
as types of copyright infringement. Theft is more strongly hyperbolic,
emphasizing or exaggerating the perceived harm of infringement to copyright
holders who choose to utilize their copyrights for profit; it connotes a
kind of loss which infringement may not actually effect, and the U.S.
Supreme Court has even ruled that infringement does not "easily" equate with
theft.["

Mark

[PStamler]

On May 22, 7:15 pm, "Trevor" <tre...@home.net> wrote:
> "PStamler" <pstam...@pobox.com> wrote in message

Yes, very similar. The techniques are different but the result is the
same.

Peace,
Paul

[PStamler]

On May 22, 8:22 pm, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac.com> wrote:
> I don't understand this.  Am I to cease getting paid for my work once a
> certain time has passed?

In the case of patents and copyrights, yes. The principle is that
there is a social benefit to allowing intellectual property (the fruit
of your work) to make money for the creator -- the benefit being that
people will be motivated to create things. But there's also a social
benefit to allowing intellectual property to pass into the public
domain, so that other people may build on the ideas for new creations.
The balance between those public benefits is struck by having
limitations on the periods of copyrights and patents, limits which are
fixed by statue. Right now, we're in a weird situation with copyrights
thanks to the Disney people; the period of copyright has been extended
to a point that many consider ridiculous (70 years after the death of
the author, to oversimplify).

That doesn't mean it's okay to exploit a musician or composer by
publishing their (recently created) work without compensation. The
copyright laws could use reforming, for sure; I'd like to see a
provision, for example, where a copyright purchased by, say, a label,
reverts to the author or artist after a certain period if the label
doesn't publish the material. That's a reform that makes sense to me,
as would shortening the term of copyright.

Peace,
Paul

[PStamler]

Er, make that "fixed by STATUTE".

Peace,
Paul

[Mxsmanic]

Don Y writes:

> IMO, the problem (with all IP -- not just copyright) is the
> term (time) involved. And, how it has been systematically
> manipulated by "owners" with deep pockets (e.g., a certain
> round-eared mouse).

Agreed. That's the real problem with copyright today.

Originally copyright was just fourteen years. Long enough for the creator of a
work to make some money with it, but not a bottomless pit of revenue for his
life and the lives of his descendants. After fourteen years, he had to create
something new if he wanted to continue making money. Which is reasonable,
since a house painter or an accountant only makes money for the work when he
does it, not for a lifetime thereafter.

But corporate interests have changed that. Copyright would be perpetual today
if it weren't for the fact that the U.S. Constitution says that it must be for
"a limited time." Unfortunately, the Constitution didn't put any upper limit
on that limited time, and it keeps getting extended.

It's fair to let an artist profit from his work for fourteen years. It's not
fair to give him or his assigns a free ride for his lifetime, plus the
lifetimes of his descendants. Nobody else gets to work once and profit
forever, why should artists be allowed to?

> Nowhere has this *hurt* the public (IMO) more than with patent
> protection on *software* (in a field where everything changes
> at 18 *month* intervals, why give an invention 17 *years* of
> "protected monopoly"??) Consider, patents were originally of
> shorter term (14 years) in an economy where an individual's
> lifetime and the time required to *fabricate* that "anything"
> was considerably *longer* (relatively speaking).

At least patents expire in 17 years. That's ten times faster than copyrights.

However, software patents are a perversion of the whole notion of patents. So
are genetic patents.

> Note that these monopolies (whether from copyright or patent)
> haven't really benefitted the "public" but, rather, have
> helped keep prices inflated.

They don't even benefit inventors or artists in many cases. The patents and
copyrights end up being held by corporations, and benefit shareholders who
have never done anything more in life than buy a few shares of stock.

The abuse of musicians is particularly flagrant, but others are abused as
well.

> It seems the folks complaining most about piracy are the
> "middle men" -- folks who will have an increasingly difficult
> time justifying their roles in the future economy :-/

The middlemen are making all the money. A copyright doesn't bring anything to
an artist who is dead, but it remains in force.

[Mxsmanic]

Jenn writes:

> I don't understand this. Am I to cease getting paid for my work once a
> certain time has passed?

Yes, and you're still getting a very generous deal.

Most people cease getting paid as soon as their work is finished. Artists can
continue to get paid for a lifetime after working just once. So it's best not
to look a gift horse in the mouth.

> Seems like a case of demand determining price.

The demand for CDs has dropped dramatically.

> OK, you're entitled. I just want my work to be given away without my
> permission.

For a limited time. Not forever.

[Mxsmanic]

Les Cargill writes:

> Nah, wasn't an insult. I've just noticed that people who derive
> income from the arts tend to have certain biases. No offense
> intended. if it was my rice bowl, I might be the same way.

Anyone who can work once and get paid forever is going to cling mightily to
the legislation that permits it.

[Mxsmanic]

Jenn writes:

> Thanks for that, Les. But yes, I have a bias: being paid for my work.

Would you accept paying a monthly fee to keep your car, instead of buying it
once?

[Mike Rivers]

On 5/22/2012 6:57 PM, Jenn wrote:

> We either value the artist's/producer's/engineer's/composer's/truck
> driver's/retail clerk's/et al's product, or we don't, just as in the
> tomato. If it has value, it is theft to take it without the owner's
> permission.

I think the question is for how long should an artist's work be protectd
from theft, exploitation, or whatever you want to call it? Does an
artist create only to make money? Would there be no more new music if
there were no more record sales (we're heading in that direction now) or
no more paid concerts?

I believe that an artist should be paid for his work, but that after a
reasonable period of time - in the artist's own lifetime - the work
should enter the public domain. We do this with patents and the general
public, in general, reaps the benefits when a patent expires. Why
should a musician or songwriter - whose popularity may not be directly
related to his art - continue to collect money for a very long time? If
he needs more money, he should write another song.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson

Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then

[Mike Rivers]

On 5/23/2012 5:15 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:

> Would you accept paying a monthly fee to keep your car, instead of buying it
> once?

Ever hear of people leasing cars?

[William Sommerwerck]

> Originally copyright was just fourteen years. Long enough for the creator
of a
> work to make some money with it, but not a bottomless pit of revenue for
his
> life and the lives of his descendants. After fourteen years, he had to
create
> something new if he wanted to continue making money. Which is reasonable,
> since a house painter or an accountant only makes money for the work when
he
> does it, not for a lifetime thereafter.

I think you're confusing copyrights with patents.

It used to be that copyrights had to be RENEWED every 14 years. This is why
many motion pictures -- including "It's a Wonderful Life" -- fell into
public domain, because they weren't renewed. Currently, copyrights do not
have to be renewed. They extend at least 50 years after the creator's death
and can be willed to third parties.

This essentially "unlimited" copyright violates the Consitution's
specification of "a limited time".

[mcp6453]

On 5/23/2012 8:00 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 5/22/2012 6:57 PM, Jenn wrote:
>
>> We either value the artist's/producer's/engineer's/composer's/truck
>> driver's/retail clerk's/et al's product, or we don't, just as in the
>> tomato. If it has value, it is theft to take it without the owner's
>> permission.
>

> I think the question is for how long should an artist's work be protected from

> theft, exploitation, or whatever you want to call it? Does an artist create only
> to make money? Would there be no more new music if there were no more record
> sales (we're heading in that direction now) or no more paid concerts?
>
> I believe that an artist should be paid for his work, but that after a
> reasonable period of time - in the artist's own lifetime - the work should enter
> the public domain. We do this with patents and the general public, in general,
> reaps the benefits when a patent expires. Why should a musician or songwriter -
> whose popularity may not be directly related to his art - continue to collect
> money for a very long time? If he needs more money, he should write another song.

Patents and copyrights are personal property, like microphones. Since I like
collecting microphones, what's a reasonable time for someone to be able to own a
microphone? When that period of time passes, does the current owner have to give
it to the first person who asks? Or, does the owner have to let anyone and
everyone use it without paying him anything?

John McBride has some really nice microphones. If it's okay to limit the amount
of time we can own private property, I need to move closer to Blackbird Studios
so that I can be the first in line when he's owned his U47s long enough.

Considered another way, if I go into a woodworking shop and make a bird house,
how long should the government permit me to own that bird house before it falls
into public domain? If I make it, I should be able to own it forever. The
argument could be made that by the government invalidating my title the my bird
house, I have to go back into the shop and make another one, which may be
artistically more creative than my first one.

All joking aside, it seems to me that the argument is being made that copyrights
and patents should not be personal property. Under the law, they are considered
to be private property. I seriously doubt that anyone here is advocating that
private property should be taken from its owner after an arbitrary period of time.

[Steve King]

"Les Cargill" <lcarg...@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:jphebu$uq9$1...@dont-email.me...

Hey everybody. I've written a song. It's a mega-hit, and will be played on
the radio for a hundred years. Millions of people will want to download it
without paying. So, everybody send me a dollar. When I get a million
bucks, I'll let you hear it. Post here if you want my mailing address, and
I'll send it right along.

Steve King

[Mxsmanic]

William Sommerwerck writes:

> It used to be that copyrights had to be RENEWED every 14 years.

The original copyright term was fourteen years, renewable once, not
indefinitely.

> This essentially "unlimited" copyright violates the Consitution's
> specification of "a limited time".

It still expires ... eventually.

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Rivers writes:

> I think the question is for how long should an artist's work be protectd
> from theft, exploitation, or whatever you want to call it?

Fourteen years is plenty. How many people in other professions can work once,
then earn money for nothing for fourteen years?

> If he needs more money, he should write another song.

Exactly.

[Mxsmanic]

mcp6453 writes:

> Patents and copyrights are personal property, like microphones. Since I like
> collecting microphones, what's a reasonable time for someone to be able to own a
> microphone?

Copyright, as the name implies controls the right to copy something, not the
right to take it.

> John McBride has some really nice microphones. If it's okay to limit the amount
> of time we can own private property, I need to move closer to Blackbird Studios
> so that I can be the first in line when he's owned his U47s long enough.

Owning a microphone doesn't prevent others from building or owning identical
or similar microphones.

> All joking aside, it seems to me that the argument is being made that copyrights
> and patents should not be personal property. Under the law, they are considered
> to be private property. I seriously doubt that anyone here is advocating that
> private property should be taken from its owner after an arbitrary period of time.

Nobody is advocating that. Expiration of copyright just allows people to make
copies.

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Rivers writes:

> Ever hear of people leasing cars?

Ever heard of people being forbidden to have a car because somebody else has
already built one?

[Steve Hawkins]

Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:ej7qr7lb82u3paa4i...@4ax.com:

Who is being forbidden access to music?

Steve Hawkins

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Hawkins writes:

> Who is being forbidden access to music?

Anyone who doesn't have a license.

[Ty Ford]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 13:26:50 -0400, Les Cargill wrote
(in article <jpgi4k$b65$1...@dont-email.me>):

> Ty Ford wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 May 2012 23:54:06 -0400, hank alrich wrote
>> (in article<1kkgpzq.147edg8szybh0N%walk...@nv.net>):
>>
>>> Steve King<steveSP...@stevekingSPAMBLOCK.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "gtbuba"<glenn...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>>>> news:f4e2c027-c4db-4a6e...@w10g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...

>>>>> I heard today that The RIAA sued a college student in Boston $675,000
>>>>> for illegally download and sharing 30 songs. ........Man that's gonna
>>>>> leave a mark. Do you think this will save the recording industry?
>>>>> That's $22500.00 per song. I hope they were good tunes.
>>>>
>>>> The suit has been going on for a long time. A higher court ruled
>>>> upholding
>>>> the lower court's ruling and imposition of the fine. The supreme court
>>>> refused without comment to hear the appeal. At least that's what I
>>>> remember
>>>> from the radio news report I heard today. So, you want it free and want
>>>> to
>>>> pass it around to your friends? Maybe not such a good idea.
>>>>
>>>> Steve KIng
>>>
>>> It's easy to see the "thirty songs" and think we're talking about thirty
>>> units. What's actually in play is making thirty songs available for
>>> others to download by the millions.
>>
>> Theft by any other name is still theft.
>>
>
> Privilege by any other name is still privilege.
>

>> Regards,
>>
>> Ty Ford

> Les Cargill

Les,

I have no clue what that means.

Ty Ford

Try my new blog; http://tyfordaudiovideo.blogspot.com/
Try my audio sample archive: http://tinyurl.com/796z25d
Try my gear reviews: http://tinyurl.com/79q797r

[Ty Ford]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 18:52:03 -0400, Les Cargill wrote
(in article <jph56e$db2$1...@dont-email.me>):

> hank alrich wrote:

>> Les Cargill<lcarg...@comcast.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ty Ford wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 21 May 2012 23:54:06 -0400, hank alrich wrote
>>

>>>>> It's easy to see the "thirty songs" and think we're talking about thirty
>>>>> units. What's actually in play is making thirty songs available for
>>>>> others to download by the millions.
>>>>
>>>> Theft by any other name is still theft.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Privilege by any other name is still privilege.
>>

>> I am privileged to have to pay for most of my food. Same for many other
>> aspects of life support, some necessary at the fundamental level, and
>> some optional.
>>
>> There is nothing as inedible as a downloaded tomato.
>>
>
>
> Copyright is still an explicit legal privilege, in exactly
> the same sense as royal land grant was an explicit legal
> privilege.
>
> Food is a rival good. That means the stealing of it deprives the owner
> of something. There's a clear tort. The historical more-setting for
> having stealing a tomato be wrong is older and better
> established.
>
> I don't think downloading is *right*, but I don't
> think it's particularly theft, either. it's something
> else. My niggle is still with the word "theft".
>
> My problem is when they put somebody in jail for
> copyright. I don't care for the government, which
> represents me, to do that.
>
> I'd make 'em do 30 days karaoke myself... *bad*
> karaoke...
>
> --
> Les Cargill
>
>

Tell you what Les,
Fuck the government (as they have truly fucked many of us)
But keep the government and the spirit of the law separate.
Keep living in some previous century (or so) if you want.
Put all your stuff out on the lawn. We'll come by and if we think it's
valuable to us, we'll take it off your hands.

WTF,

[Ty Ford]

On Wed, 23 May 2012 11:25:48 -0400, Steve King wrote
(in article <jpivh6$du7$1...@news.albasani.net>):

I'll buy THAT for a dollar!

I'll pay you TWO dollars not to sing!

(Manly) Hugs,

[Les Cargill]

That is because they work for us, and we're idiots.

> But keep the government and the spirit of the law separate.

*Somebody is going to jail over this*. I still
have a problem with that, regardless of how you slice it.
It's out of proportion, but it's called for by the
law.

It's called for by the law because this is one example of
how somebody with deep pockets has spent a lot of money
to get the law in that shape.

Same for some kid who happened to forget about the roach snubbed
out in the ashtray of his car at the wrong time.

> Keep living in some previous century (or so) if you want.

I think you got a diode in backwards there - this *is* a 21st
century sort of problem...

The 21st century people couldn't care less about IP
in general.

> Put all your stuff out on the lawn. We'll come by and if we think it's
> valuable to us, we'll take it off your hands.

> '

LOLz.

> WTF,
>
> Ty Ford
>
>
> Try my new blog; http://tyfordaudiovideo.blogspot.com/
> Try my audio sample archive: http://tinyurl.com/796z25d
> Try my gear reviews: http://tinyurl.com/79q797r
>

--
Les Cargill

[Steve Hawkins]

Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:l9hqr7dco0hh45rm7...@4ax.com:

> Steve Hawkins writes:
>
>> Who is being forbidden access to music?
>
> Anyone who doesn't have a license.

So, you don't want to just listen to music, you want to make money off of
other peoples music and not pay them for the use of their work? That is
NOT denying you access to their music. Cover bands who play in venues
are covered by PRO fees which the venues factor into their expenses and
is paid for by their customers. Even radio use is eventually paid for by
the listener and yes, I know all about how the money gets distributed.
If you want to hear a sadder tale ask any artist about the earnings we
get from digital distribution.

I've never been able to figure out why people feel entitled to free music
and get upset when the artist asks for payment. Somebody in this thread
said if the artist wanted to make more money they should write new music.
How about if you want to record and make money off of music, why don't
you write your own?

BTW, I believe copyrights should expire and go to public domain when the
artist dies or decides to give up their rights. In the meantime, write
your own music or pay-up and quit whining.

Steve Hawkins

[Ron Capik]

Also, the iPod, ear-bud, MP3 generation (for the most part)
couldn't care less about quality studio productions.

> < ...snip... >
>> WTF,
>>
>> Ty Ford
> --
> Les Cargill
==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Hawkins writes:

> So, you don't want to just listen to music, you want to make money off of
> other peoples music and not pay them for the use of their work?

Just listening to it requires a license. It has nothing to do with making
money off it.

> That is NOT denying you access to their music.

The whole basis of copyright is denial of certain rights to anyone other than
the copyright holder, unless the copyright holder licenses those rights to
other parties, at his discretion.

> Cover bands who play in venues are covered by PRO fees which the venues
> factor into their expenses and is paid for by their customers.

Because they need a license, which they must pay for, otherwise they are
forbidden to play music that they don't own.

> Even radio use is eventually paid for by
> the listener and yes, I know all about how the money gets distributed.

See above.

> If you want to hear a sadder tale ask any artist about the earnings we
> get from digital distribution.

The contract the artist signed with other parties is not my concern.

> I've never been able to figure out why people feel entitled to free music
> and get upset when the artist asks for payment.

I don't think anyone would get upset if they only had to pay for a limited
time, such as 14 years. But when they are still expected to pay after 150
years, long after the artist has died, in fact, their upset is understandable.

> Somebody in this thread said if the artist wanted to make more money
> they should write new music.

Yes. That's how the world of work operates. If you want to continue making
money, you must continue working. Copyright creates an exception to this, and
abusive copyright laws create a free ride for an elite minority of the
population.

> How about if you want to record and make money off of music, why don't
> you write your own?

I don't want to make money off music, and most people don't.

> BTW, I believe copyrights should expire and go to public domain when the
> artist dies or decides to give up their rights.

I believe copyrights should expire after fourteen years. Any artist who hasn't
created anything new by then simply got lucky and has no talent. In any case,
he never deserves a life-long free ride.

[Steve Hawkins]

Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:cd7rr79tv53lu4o90...@4ax.com:

Are you on crack or something? That is about the stupidest logic I've
ever run across. BTW, why are you in this group?

Steve Hawkins

[Don Y]

On 5/23/2012 8:17 AM, mcp6453 wrote:
> On 5/23/2012 8:00 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
>> On 5/22/2012 6:57 PM, Jenn wrote:
>>
>>> We either value the artist's/producer's/engineer's/composer's/truck
>>> driver's/retail clerk's/et al's product, or we don't, just as in the
>>> tomato. If it has value, it is theft to take it without the owner's
>>> permission.
>>
>> I think the question is for how long should an artist's work be protected from
>> theft, exploitation, or whatever you want to call it? Does an artist create only
>> to make money? Would there be no more new music if there were no more record
>> sales (we're heading in that direction now) or no more paid concerts?
>>
>> I believe that an artist should be paid for his work, but that after a
>> reasonable period of time - in the artist's own lifetime - the work should enter
>> the public domain. We do this with patents and the general public, in general,
>> reaps the benefits when a patent expires. Why should a musician or songwriter -
>> whose popularity may not be directly related to his art - continue to collect
>> money for a very long time? If he needs more money, he should write another song.
>
> Patents and copyrights are personal property, like microphones.

There's a difference -- microphones are *tangible* objects.
Patents and copyrights are *intangibles*. They are just
ideas.

You *discover* the gene responsible for a particular malady.
You didn't *create* it. Yet, now you want protection from
others being able to design products that can identify,
modify, eliminate, etc. that gene to detect or correct the
malady that it precipitates?

"I've discovered America! (mine, mine, mine, mine, mine!)
Oh, and by the way, no photos, please..."

> Since I like
> collecting microphones, what's a reasonable time for someone to be able to own a
> microphone? When that period of time passes, does the current owner have to give
> it to the first person who asks? Or, does the owner have to let anyone and
> everyone use it without paying him anything?
>
> John McBride has some really nice microphones. If it's okay to limit the amount
> of time we can own private property, I need to move closer to Blackbird Studios
> so that I can be the first in line when he's owned his U47s long enough.
>
> Considered another way, if I go into a woodworking shop and make a bird house,
> how long should the government permit me to own that bird house before it falls
> into public domain? If I make it, I should be able to own it forever.

Should you be granted a monopoly to be the ONLY one who can make
birdhouses? Or, the only one who can ever *own* one?? (i.e.,
once you have the protected monopoly, who's to say that you
EVER decide to make a second? Or, license someone else to
make them?)

"I have a cure for cancer. I cured my spouse. No one else should
be able to use this cure for 17 years. And, by the way, I have
no interest in curing anyone ELSE!!"

> The
> argument could be made that by the government invalidating my title the my bird
> house, I have to go back into the shop and make another one, which may be
> artistically more creative than my first one.
>
> All joking aside, it seems to me that the argument is being made that copyrights
> and patents should not be personal property. Under the law, they are considered
> to be private property. I seriously doubt that anyone here is advocating that
> private property should be taken from its owner after an arbitrary period of time.

Here's an amusing set of thought experiments that I enjoy pondering...

Patent/copyright/etc. are oriented towards *commercial* interests
of "inventions" (couldn't come up with a better term that applied
to all of the above "products"). I.e., I can blatantly copy
the design of an iPad for my own personal use. And, take photos
of myself holding my creation -- i.e., to make it clear to
others that such an undertaking is possible. I can probably
even publish instructions for how to do this (as long as I
haven't copied any of their code, chip masks, etc.).

Imagine copying the *functionality* of an iPod (PMP). Probably
violates at least *some* patents. Say I release some software
for a PC that implements all of these features "for free".

Have I infringed, legally? Morally?

Now, a step into the future... imagine you live next door
to George Jetson (forgive the cultural reference for those
who might not grasp it). You've got a device in your house that
can fabricate *anything*. "Make me an iPad/iPod -- for my
own personal use!"

Again, have I infringed, legally? Morally?

[Don Y]

Hi Paul,

On 5/22/2012 9:03 PM, PStamler wrote:

> On May 22, 8:22 pm, Jenn<jennconductsREMOVET...@mac.com> wrote:
>> I don't understand this. Am I to cease getting paid for my work once a
>> certain time has passed?
>

> In the case of patents and copyrights, yes. The principle is that
> there is a social benefit to allowing intellectual property (the fruit
> of your work) to make money for the creator -- the benefit being that
> people will be motivated to create things. But there's also a social
> benefit to allowing intellectual property to pass into the public
> domain, so that other people may build on the ideas for new creations.
> The balance between those public benefits is struck by having
> limitations on the periods of copyrights and patents, limits which are
> fixed by statue. Right now, we're in a weird situation with copyrights
> thanks to the Disney people; the period of copyright has been extended
> to a point that many consider ridiculous (70 years after the death of
> the author, to oversimplify).

Exactly. I don't hold much sympathy for a teacher complaining
that her students are brats. Or a police officer complaining
that the criminals are shooting at him. You know what you're
getting into when you enter a profession (or, at least you
*should*!). If you don't like people shooting at you, I
suggest you don't join the police force! :-/

> That doesn't mean it's okay to exploit a musician or composer by
> publishing their (recently created) work without compensation. The
> copyright laws could use reforming, for sure; I'd like to see a
> provision, for example, where a copyright purchased by, say, a label,
> reverts to the author or artist after a certain period if the label
> doesn't publish the material. That's a reform that makes sense to me,
> as would shortening the term of copyright.

A simpler fix -- though far more Draconian. If "corporations are
people" (in the eyes of the law), then:
- treat them the *same* as people
- prevent them from owning OTHER PEOPLE (corporations!)
- cause them to *die* ~70 years after they are created -- regardless
of their "apparent" health.

:-/

(No, I don't think this is realistic. But, if you start thinking
along the "biological equivalent" line of reasoning, you may come
up with "fairer" implementations of laws/regulations)

[Don Y]

Hi Jennifer,

On 5/22/2012 6:22 PM, Jenn wrote:
> In article<jphc0v$maf$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Don Y<th...@isnotme.com>
> wrote:

>
>> On 5/22/2012 3:57 PM, Jenn wrote:
>>
>>> We either value the artist's/producer's/engineer's/composer's/truck
>>> driver's/retail clerk's/et al's product, or we don't, just as in the
>>> tomato. If it has value, it is theft to take it without the owner's
>>> permission.
>>

>> IMO, the problem (with all IP -- not just copyright) is the
>> term (time) involved. And, how it has been systematically
>> manipulated by "owners" with deep pockets (e.g., a certain
>> round-eared mouse).
>>

>> Nowhere has this *hurt* the public (IMO) more than with patent
>> protection on *software* (in a field where everything changes
>> at 18 *month* intervals, why give an invention 17 *years* of
>> "protected monopoly"??) Consider, patents were originally of
>> shorter term (14 years) in an economy where an individual's
>> lifetime and the time required to *fabricate* that "anything"
>> was considerably *longer* (relatively speaking).
>

> I don't understand this. Am I to cease getting paid for my work once a
> certain time has passed?

That is the very nature of copyright/patent protections!
Should we still be paying Bach's estate royalties??
Should we still be paying monopolistic prices for
penicillin? What incentive is there for better products
to come along?

The State grants you those *limited* protections in the
expectation that the works will eventually benefit *all*.

>> Note that these monopolies (whether from copyright or patent)
>> haven't really benefitted the "public" but, rather, have

>> helped keep prices inflated. Witness how the price of
>> generic drugs drops precipitously once the ethical
>> (name brand) version goes off patent. Or, how a $4 LP in
>> the late 70's became a $15 CD 15 years later -- despite the
>> fact that the production, shipping and warranty costs
>> dropped significantly in that same period.

>
> Seems like a case of demand determining price.

Every record company magically had the same cost structure
(evidenced by the consistency of pricing across record
labels)? And, when they moved to a radically different
technology (CD's), they *still* had identical cost
structures?

*Really*???

And cigarettes *don't* cause cancer (as the heads of the tobacco
companies all testified, under oath, to Congress...)

>> It seems the folks complaining most about piracy are the
>> "middle men" -- folks who will have an increasingly difficult
>> time justifying their roles in the future economy :-/
>

> OK, you're entitled. I just want my work to be given away without my

> permission. You probably feel the same way.

I write software and design hardware for a living. Ever
hear of "software piracy"? Ever hear of "counterfeit
products"?

In the 80's, I was involved in the gaming industry (think:
arcades). Counterfeit products were commonplace! You
would *literally* find a product with *your* hardware
inside it running *your* software -- except the counterfeiter
had excised your copyright (if it appeared in plain text)
and had replaced the code fragment that displayed the name of
the game with some OTHER "name" (can't be THAT blatant with the
counterfeit lest it be REALLY EASY to identify).

"Kits" that would allow an owner/operator (the guy who owns
or is responsible for operating the games in an arcade or on
a "vending route") to easily convert an existing video
game to another (without having to deal with shipping
a large wooden cabinet full of mechanism/electronics).

But, many games were "90 day wonders" (even those independently
authored). How do you get an injunction in place *that* fast?
By the time you have identified the counterfeiter and filed
paperwork to stop him (which might eventually lead to
seizing shipments at ports -- if you knew *which* shipments
and which ports!), the game had fallen from the public's
interest and the counterfeiter had moved on to some other
game. Or, changed the name of his company. etc.

Note that my comments (especially wrt patent protections) go
directly *against* my financial interests! Someone can
"steal" my software just as easily as your music. That
could even be a "respected" domestic corporation! Someone
can even do so semi-LEGALLY by making subtle changes to it
that render it unrecognizable (without my expenditure of
significant resources to reverse engineer *their* "product";
and every other similar product that *might* have some
aspect of my IP hiding deep within).

A judge/jury can more readily "hear" the similarities between
"your music" and a counterfeit of it -- whether a literal
copy or a "tweaked" copy... same music, different lyrics;
same lyrics, different music; slightly different lyrics,
etc. By contrast, AFTER investing money to reverse engineer
the counterfeit copy, I have to find expert witnesses to
argue that the product "clearly" is a copy of my work while
the defense will just as readily argue that it was an
"independent creation" that COINCIDENTALLY seems similar.

And, *I* can infringe on a patent that I don't even know
exists! Imagine someone copyrighting a particular *chord*!
Suddenly, no one can use that chord in their music? (How
many times have you heard those four distinctive Twilight
Zone notes played... does someone get royalties each time?
I suspect it is a more recognizable abstract concept than
the "Ford" logo!!)

If I write a piece of code, put it on a CD/DVD/whatever
and sell it, the only warranty I have to offer is for
"defective media". If, OTOH, I put that code into a *device*
I now have to warranty the behavior of that *code*
(effectively). Why can't I just warranty the actual *hardware*
(which is very easy to prove is functional regardless of
the number of BUGS in the NON-WARRANTIED code!)

Nor do I have an industry-wide organization policing
the market on my behalf and litigating for me. Inspecting
cargo crates, monitoring downloads, etc. *I* have to
bear the costs of identifying thieves and prosecuting them.

Yes, I **surely** "feel the same way"! :-/ Can't you see
me exuberance??!

So, while I share your concerns, I'm still convinced that
the current approach is broken/wrong. But, I haven't been able
to come up with an alternative that makes sense, either! In
_The Price of Everything_, Eduardo Porter pokes a stick at
this (and many other issues) -- with some "egg head" insights
(that may or may NOT be true -- but are worth thinking about).
I figure if people who actually *think* about these things
"for a living" haven't come up with a solution, I shouldn't
feel bad for being in the same boat! :>

Ideas, "expressions", etc. deserve *limited* protections. Yet,
I am far more inclined to come up with The Next Great Thing if
I know I can't live off The Last Great Thing, indefinitely!
In a society where things change as rapidly as they do,
presently, *shorter* timeframes would seem to be more correct
than *longer*!

[Don Y]

Hi Mike,

On 5/23/2012 5:00 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 5/22/2012 6:57 PM, Jenn wrote:
>
>> We either value the artist's/producer's/engineer's/composer's/truck
>> driver's/retail clerk's/et al's product, or we don't, just as in the
>> tomato. If it has value, it is theft to take it without the owner's
>> permission.
>
> I think the question is for how long should an artist's work be protectd
> from theft, exploitation, or whatever you want to call it? Does an
> artist create only to make money? Would there be no more new music if
> there were no more record sales (we're heading in that direction now) or
> no more paid concerts?

What is the relative effort involved in "making a song"?
Perhaps that is an indication of the intrinsic *value*
of such a "work"!

E.g., if I design a product, there are typically thousands
of man hours that go into that design. Two, one or a *fraction*
of such designs each year. A ~50 year productive lifespan
so maybe 50 "equivalent products"?

A pro athlete may have a 10 year career. Perhaps that
justifies the higher pay levels?

Is there something that inherently limits an "artist" to
a certain number of "products" per year? I can understand
a limit on the number of *performances*. But, is there
something that says you are physically unable to compose
more than N songs in a year? Or, write more than M lyrics?
Do you sit at a desk for 2000 hours each workyear cranking
out sheet music? Etc.

> I believe that an artist should be paid for his work, but that after a
> reasonable period of time - in the artist's own lifetime - the work
> should enter the public domain. We do this with patents and the general
> public, in general, reaps the benefits when a patent expires. Why should
> a musician or songwriter - whose popularity may not be directly related
> to his art - continue to collect money for a very long time? If he needs
> more money, he should write another song.

Doctor cures my cold. Do I send him a check each year as
"ongoing payment" for the work he did at that time?

Gardener plants a tree in my yard. Do I send *him* a check?

I buy a pair of shoes at the mall. Do I need to keep paying
*that* vendor?

Surely I obtained ongoing benefits from each of these
"purchases". But, they are viewed as *transactions*,
not "relationships".

I go to a concert and listen to a performance. I *pay* for
that enjoyment. Do I *keep* paying to remind myself how
*good* it was?

[I'm not claiming to believe these things. Rather, trying
to put some context around how *other* financial transactions
are viewed in society. *Surely* you would consider an
oncologist "saving your life" as worthy of ongoing payments
beyond the "fee for service"! Yet, if you asked such a
patient about this, they'd look at you with a blank stare:
"I paid him for his service. I don't owe him anything!"]

[Don Y]

On 5/22/2012 6:10 PM, gtbuba wrote:

> On May 22, 8:46 pm, Don Y<t...@isnotme.com> wrote:

>> It seems the folks complaining most about piracy are the
>> "middle men" -- folks who will have an increasingly difficult
>> time justifying their roles in the future economy :-/
>

> I don't understand why they didn't do it sooner. Of course it's
> impossible to predict what the file sharing was going to do to this
> business. I remember in the 1980's and the DAT came out and the
> record companies were worried about someone with a Dat could make
> perfect copies bootleg cd's. Ended up the Dat never sold in the
> consumer market, but we engineers used it to mix to. GT.

Why didn't the (desktop) software industry react to the
potential of copying/counterfeiting their products sooner?
I mean if *anyone* could understand how easy it would be to
copy "bits on a medium", it would be these folks!

I think the software industry has started to come to grips
with this problem. Firms that offer products requiring
good support can rely on the availability of that support
conditioned on a "registered sale". Folks who previously
overpriced their products (and found consumers looking for
"gray area" purchases) have repriced them to more reasonable
levels. Folks who had outrageously high support costs
simply went out of business (or left those markets).

Years ago (70's), you'd buy software simply to save the
cost of photocopying the manual! "Heck, we get a genuine
manual *and* the name of a person we can call when something
doesn't work quite right! And, we can write it off..."

Most of the problems with software started appearing when
The Masses entered the market and when vendors started
charging "high" prices for their products (even if those
prices accurately reflected their costs!). That's when
we saw efforts to cut those prices by reducing costs
(i.e., you no longer got 20 pounds of manuals with
your compiler purchase; telephone support was no longer
"limitless" -- nor free; etc.)

Now, people are much more comfortable *without* having
printed manuals. And, with "user forums" where they
can get their questions answered "for free".

The market *adjusted*. Recording companies seem to want to
keep their market on *their* terms.

You will see similar trends becoming more evident with
other media. I.e., television, print media, "news" (in
general), etc. as consumers move the price points of
these goods -- which had previously been controlled
by the *suppliers*!

Interesting times!

[Mxsmanic]

Don Y writes:

> Firms that offer products requiring
> good support can rely on the availability of that support
> conditioned on a "registered sale".

Any product that requires good support is defective. My washing machine
doesn't require good support, because it doesn't break down to begin with.

[Mxsmanic]

PStamler writes:

> That doesn't mean it's okay to exploit a musician or composer by
> publishing their (recently created) work without compensation. The
> copyright laws could use reforming, for sure; I'd like to see a
> provision, for example, where a copyright purchased by, say, a label,
> reverts to the author or artist after a certain period if the label
> doesn't publish the material. That's a reform that makes sense to me,
> as would shortening the term of copyright.

I can think of two good ideas: (1) make the term of copyright 14 years again,
non-renewable; and (2) make it illegal to transfer any copyrights to
anyone--the author keeps the copyrights until they expire (this is already
true for "moral rights," where they exist, but not commercial rights).

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Hawkins writes:

> Are you on crack or something? That is about the stupidest logic I've
> ever run across.

In other words, you disagree.

Do you derive any of your income from licensing of copyrighted materials?

> BTW, why are you in this group?

Because I want to be.

[Don Y]

On 5/24/2012 2:52 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:
> Don Y writes:
>
>> Firms that offer products requiring
>> good support can rely on the availability of that support
>> conditioned on a "registered sale".
>
> Any product that requires good support is defective.

That;s a naive idea. A product may simply be very complex
and require individualized assistance to explain particular
usage issues.

E.g., dBase, when first introduced, was such a radically
different concept for the targeted audience that "hand-holding"
was a very desirable "benefit" of legitimate ownership.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:941sr7hlak0i8g4in...@4ax.com...

> Don Y writes:

>> Firms that offer products requiring
>> good support can rely on the availability of that support
>> conditioned on a "registered sale".

> Any product that requires good support is defective.

That is a modern approach that has some relevance for some consumer
products.

If that were a global rule, it would greatly limit the complexity and
innovation of products.

> My washing machine doesn't require good support, because it doesn't break
> down to begin with.

Your washing machine is a relatively simplistic machine in terms of basic
function and operation.

Compare and contrast your washing machine with say a robot that does
delicate and precise assembly tasks or a nuclear reactor.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:8d7qr7l36c28n50k2...@4ax.com...

> mcp6453 writes:
>
>> Patents and copyrights are personal property, like microphones. Since I
>> like
>> collecting microphones, what's a reasonable time for someone to be able
>> to own a
>> microphone?
>
> Copyright, as the name implies controls the right to copy something, not
> the
> right to take it.
>
>> John McBride has some really nice microphones. If it's okay to limit the
>> amount
>> of time we can own private property, I need to move closer to Blackbird
>> Studios
>> so that I can be the first in line when he's owned his U47s long enough.
>
> Owning a microphone doesn't prevent others from building or owning
> identical
> or similar microphones.

As a practical matter, owning IP can prevent or control how others build and
sell even items that are just similar. Example: Yamaha's control over the
digital console market.

[Steve Hawkins]

Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:fi1sr7dqnhut3vmr4...@4ax.com:

Your "free ride" comment shows how ignorant you are about music as an art
and business. Do you understand that everytime someone legally dowloads
one of my tunes that I pay for it? Do you have any idea how much it
costs a musician to prepare, equip, plan, maintain, create, record,
distribute, promote, travel and perform our craft? Now, add to that all
the expenses non-musicians deal with and that's why 99% of us have day
jobs and/or working spouses. When does my "free ride" kick in and who do
I see about it?

My music is not free and I protect my rights, if that's what your asking.
I have also given permission to several folks to use my music for
promoting art studios, a film project for the Forest Service and
instrument building. I also do charity gigs and demo for Luthiers at
guitar festivals. What, pray tell, have you done?

Steve Hawkins

[Mike Rivers]

On 5/24/2012 3:57 AM, Don Y wrote:

> What is the relative effort involved in "making a song"?
> Perhaps that is an indication of the intrinsic *value*
> of such a "work"!

Good question, and the answer is that they're all different.
You have songwriters who say that songs just come into their
head and are fished in 15 minutes. Others work at it as if
it were a real job, writing songs on a schedule, one a day,
one a week, five a month, whatever they choose, and throw
away the ones that they don't think are worth keeping
(regardless of whether someone else thinks they're worth
keeping). Some struggle for months or longer with an idea
before it becomes a song. Part of the creative process is
sorting out what you want identified as your work, and what
you don't.

> A pro athlete may have a 10 year career. Perhaps that
> justifies the higher pay levels?

I think that with athletes, it's a matter of popularity,
very much the same as performing artists. Some performers
are one hit wonders (as are some baseball players). Serious
songwriters, because their physical work is less demanding
than athletes or performers, can have a long career as long
as the creative juices are flowing.

> Is there something that inherently limits an "artist" to
> a certain number of "products" per year? I can understand
> a limit on the number of *performances*. But, is there
> something that says you are physically unable to compose
> more than N songs in a year? Or, write more than M lyrics?

No, not at all, but if you turn out 2,000 songs a year, most
of then aren't likely to get into the hands of people who
will make you money from them.

I remember a British short subject where an artist hauled a
large sheet of plywood, a ladder, and several buckets of
paint to the seashore, proceeded to dribble paint on the
plywood in what seemed like random patterns (both the
patterns and the way he was spreading the paint). After it
dried, he took out a saw and cut the sheet up into about a
dozen "paintings." His customer came by, picked out two or
three, paid the artist, who, after the customer left, tossed
the rest of the pieces of painted plywood into the ocean.
You can write songs the same way. And I believe that you
should be paid for them the same way.

The thing about songs and copyrights is that once the song
is written, the copyright gives you the write to publish and
sell as many copies as you wish. So if someone wants to buy
your song 50 years after you've written and perhaps
forgotten it, they can, and you'll get paid a few cents of
the buyer's purchase price. But if you build a microphone,
you get paid for it once, and don't get a nickel from the
10x inflated price it's now bringing on eBay.

Life isn't fair. So why should songwriters get such a good
break? And I suppose the answer is that if they didn't they
wouldn't write songs. For some this is true, for others it
isn't.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Mike Rivers]

On 5/24/2012 5:54 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:

> I can think of two good ideas: (1) make the term of copyright 14 years again,
> non-renewable; and (2) make it illegal to transfer any copyrights to
> anyone--the author keeps the copyrights until they expire (this is already
> true for "moral rights," where they exist, but not commercial rights).

I'd go along with that, though the length of copyright
protection is up for debate. But the rub is that copyright
is something that can be bought at risk, and this is what a
record company who wants publishing rights when they "buy" a
song from one of their artists.

They're betting that the song will be a continuing source of
income for them ever after that record stops selling,
because others will record the song. If they just paid
outright for a license to use a song on a record, when the
record stops selling, they stop making money.

People in "money" industries like to bet that their judgment
is good. It's part of the fun, the risk, and the business.
Good ones are successful. The best bet they can make on a
single license is that the record will sell in great
quantities for a long time, and that's harder to guess, I
guess.

[Richard Webb]

On Thu 2012-May-24 11:31, Steve Hawkins writes:
> Your "free ride" comment shows how ignorant you are about music as
> an art and business. Do you understand that everytime someone
> legally dowloads one of my tunes that I pay for it? Do you have
> any idea how much it costs a musician to prepare, equip, plan,
> maintain, create, record, distribute, promote, travel and perform
> our craft? Now, add to that all the expenses non-musicians deal
> with and that's why 99% of us have day jobs and/or working spouses.
> When does my "free ride" kick in and who do I see about it?

You're not supposed to get one, none of us are who derive
our livelihood from anything to do with art. We're supposed to give it away.

IT seems funny how i explain it much the same way to the "I
want it free" crowd when I bother to engage in such
conversations at all.

YOu wouldn't ask your plumber, electrician, or the guy who
fixes your lunch to provide you with his goods and services
for free.

Every free ride somebody takes with downloading means it is
much more likely that artist won't avail himself of
professional production services for the next one, but just
toss it out there from his basement. Why avail oneself of
professional production services just to give it away? Why
spend time maintaining equipment, and honing one's skills
just to do it for free.

YEs there's the love of playing, but that doesn't go very
far when it comes to keeping it together and being able to
perform. Live performance are often "free rides" too, or
expected to be. Iguess we're supposed to spend our own
money to entertain these folks.

YOu want music for free? Create your own damned music! NO
talent, too bad.

Regards,
Richard
... Love is being owned by a rottweiler!
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[Mxsmanic]

Don Y writes:

> That;s a naive idea.

Not for software. Ironically, it is much more frequently achieved for
hardware, since hardware manufacturers have been around longer, and consumer
expectations are higher and their tolerance for being shafted much lower.

> A product may simply be very complex
> and require individualized assistance to explain particular
> usage issues.

That's training, not support. They are often confused, even by the companies
providing them. Most support calls are in fact training calls, at least for
software that works reasonably well.

[Mxsmanic]

Arny Krueger writes:

> If that were a global rule, it would greatly limit the complexity and
> innovation of products.

I'd rather have a product that works than a product that is complex and
innovative.

> Your washing machine is a relatively simplistic machine in terms of basic
> function and operation.

More importantly, it was designed and built to not have any significant
defects before it was sold to the public.

> Compare and contrast your washing machine with say a robot that does
> delicate and precise assembly tasks or a nuclear reactor.

Or a software product, which is probably the most defective and least reliable
product imaginable.

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Rivers writes:

> I'd go along with that, though the length of copyright
> protection is up for debate.

Fourteen years is plenty. If an artist can't produce anything new in more than
a decade, he needs to find some other way of supporting himself.

> But the rub is that copyright
> is something that can be bought at risk, and this is what a
> record company who wants publishing rights when they "buy" a
> song from one of their artists.

This can be dealt with using appropriate licensing models. The essential thing
is that the artist should keep final control of his work--and by making it
illegal for him to transfer his rights to anyone else, it becomes impossible
for companies like multimedia labels to force him into giving up his
copyrights.

> They're betting that the song will be a continuing source of
> income for them ever after that record stops selling,
> because others will record the song.

They need to find a business model that involves producing something of their
own, instead of just riding on the backs of content creators.

> If they just paid
> outright for a license to use a song on a record, when the
> record stops selling, they stop making money.

Life is tough.

> People in "money" industries like to bet that their judgment
> is good. It's part of the fun, the risk, and the business.

People in money industries are exceptional in that their "industries" do not
actually produce anything, but instead just shift money around, taking a
percentage with each shift. They are a pox on society, and a growing one.

Fortunately, technology may eventually destroy the middlemen.

> Good ones are successful. The best bet they can make on a
> single license is that the record will sell in great
> quantities for a long time, and that's harder to guess, I
> guess.

Where is the artist in all this? Why does simply distributing a song deserve
the lion's share of the revenue it generates?

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Rivers writes:

> Life isn't fair. So why should songwriters get such a good
> break? And I suppose the answer is that if they didn't they
> wouldn't write songs. For some this is true, for others it
> isn't.

My guess is for the vast majority of songwriters and musicians, they'd be
doing exactly the same thing even if they never made a penny from it. In fact,
a lot of them are already doing just that (even a few who have successful
songs).

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Hawkins writes:

> Your "free ride" comment shows how ignorant you are about music as an art
> and business.

You haven't answered my question. (But apparently you have done so below.)

> Do you understand that everytime someone legally dowloads
> one of my tunes that I pay for it?

Then you need to be more careful about what contracts you sign.

> Do you have any idea how much it costs a musician to prepare, equip, plan,
> maintain, create, record, distribute, promote, travel and perform our craft?

If it costs more than you are making, you need to streamline the business.

> Now, add to that all
> the expenses non-musicians deal with and that's why 99% of us have day
> jobs and/or working spouses. When does my "free ride" kick in and who do
> I see about it?

When others like your music enough, if ever.

> My music is not free and I protect my rights, if that's what your asking.
> I have also given permission to several folks to use my music for
> promoting art studios, a film project for the Forest Service and
> instrument building. I also do charity gigs and demo for Luthiers at
> guitar festivals.

It doesn't sound like you've become a superstar yet.

> What, pray tell, have you done?

I'm not a musician, although I've produced other types of copyrighted works.

[Mxsmanic]

Richard Webb writes:

> YOu wouldn't ask your plumber, electrician, or the guy who
> fixes your lunch to provide you with his goods and services
> for free.

Tradesmen don't do what they do for pleasure; they do it to earn a living.
Their work isn't fun.

Artists do what they do for pleasure; asking to be guaranteed a living from it
is asking too much. If you don't like the revenue you earn from art, find
another line of work.

Nobody needs art, but everybody needs reliable plumbing and wiring.

> Every free ride somebody takes with downloading means it is
> much more likely that artist won't avail himself of
> professional production services for the next one, but just
> toss it out there from his basement. Why avail oneself of
> professional production services just to give it away? Why
> spend time maintaining equipment, and honing one's skills
> just to do it for free.

I don't know ... why?

What entitles an artist to spend money on professional production services if
his work isn't popular enough to pay for them? Maybe all his talent (or lack
thereof) will ever be able to support is distribution from a PC in his
basement.

> YEs there's the love of playing, but that doesn't go very
> far when it comes to keeping it together and being able to
> perform.

Life is tough.

You can always become a coal miner.

> Live performance are often "free rides" too, or
> expected to be. Iguess we're supposed to spend our own
> money to entertain these folks.

You're supposed to realize that if people like your work, you'll eventually
make money, but if they don't, you won't. Life is tough.

> YOu want music for free? Create your own damned music! NO
> talent, too bad.

I agree. I'll pay to use music I like. But I will neither use nor pay for
music I don't like. And I don't like most music I hear.

[Don Y]

Hi Mike,

On 5/24/2012 10:32 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 5/24/2012 3:57 AM, Don Y wrote:
>
>> What is the relative effort involved in "making a song"?
>> Perhaps that is an indication of the intrinsic *value*
>> of such a "work"!
>
> Good question, and the answer is that they're all different. You have

No doubt! Some folks can build a house in a few weeks.
Others might take months for the same task. That's true
of any endeavor. (not to mention the *quality* of the
house built!)

> songwriters who say that songs just come into their head and are fished
> in 15 minutes. Others work at it as if it were a real job, writing songs
> on a schedule, one a day, one a week, five a month, whatever they
> choose, and throw away the ones that they don't think are worth keeping
> (regardless of whether someone else thinks they're worth keeping). Some
> struggle for months or longer with an idea before it becomes a song.
> Part of the creative process is sorting out what you want identified as
> your work, and what you don't.

Understood. I might "throw together" a design overnight
to tackle a one-time problem. OTOH, if I am designing a
*product*, I beat on it for a LONG time before I "bless"
it. It "speaks for me" in my absence. (and I take pride
in my workmanship)

>> A pro athlete may have a 10 year career. Perhaps that
>> justifies the higher pay levels?
>
> I think that with athletes, it's a matter of popularity, very much the
> same as performing artists. Some performers are one hit wonders (as are
> some baseball players).

Should the "one hit wonder" be able to live, forever, off his
*one* success?

> Serious songwriters, because their physical work
> is less demanding than athletes or performers, can have a long career as
> long as the creative juices are flowing.

Unfortunately, you can't "create on demand". I.e., just because
you want (or NEED) another "hit"/product doesn't mean you can
crank one out! (unless the market is willing to accept
"pirt neer anytin" you produce as "gold")

[Apparently, Lennon or McCartney once commented that they
would sit down to compose a new piece and begin with a
comment to the effect of, "OK, let's write us a new CAR..."]

>> Is there something that inherently limits an "artist" to
>> a certain number of "products" per year? I can understand
>> a limit on the number of *performances*. But, is there
>> something that says you are physically unable to compose
>> more than N songs in a year? Or, write more than M lyrics?
>
> No, not at all, but if you turn out 2,000 songs a year, most of then
> aren't likely to get into the hands of people who will make you money
> from them.

Is *that* part of the problem? I.e., requiring *others* to
"make you money from them"? This sort of dependency means
that a *filter* exists between your work and its consumption
(consumption == payment!). If that filter is CRAP, then
*it* is the reason you're not adequately compensated!

> I remember a British short subject where an artist hauled a large sheet
> of plywood, a ladder, and several buckets of paint to the seashore,
> proceeded to dribble paint on the plywood in what seemed like random
> patterns (both the patterns and the way he was spreading the paint).
> After it dried, he took out a saw and cut the sheet up into about a
> dozen "paintings." His customer came by, picked out two or three, paid
> the artist, who, after the customer left, tossed the rest of the pieces
> of painted plywood into the ocean. You can write songs the same way. And
> I believe that you should be paid for them the same way.

I know artists who do this sort of thing routinely.
Before each "trip" they take, they circulate "offers"
for folks to prepurchase *a* painting from that trip.
Sight (yet) unseen -- because they haven't been painted, yet!

On return, the paintings are begun (or finished) and
the "subscribers" offered their choice of the available
paintings based on priority (either by how much they
*paid* or by the order in which their payments were
accepted).

Sometimes everyone is happy. Sometimes *not*! :>

> The thing about songs and copyrights is that once the song is written,
> the copyright gives you the write to publish and sell as many copies as
> you wish. So if someone wants to buy your song 50 years after you've
> written and perhaps forgotten it, they can, and you'll get paid a few
> cents of the buyer's purchase price. But if you build a microphone, you
> get paid for it once, and don't get a nickel from the 10x inflated price
> it's now bringing on eBay.
>
> Life isn't fair. So why should songwriters get such a good break? And I
> suppose the answer is that if they didn't they wouldn't write songs. For
> some this is true, for others it isn't.

It will be interesting to see how technology continues to
bend our culture. E.g., it used to be that "newsrooms"
were a valued function at a broadcast/print provider.
They drove the advertising stream.

Then, they became a "cost of doing business".

Now, they tend to be regarded as a *drag* on the firm's
economic performance (as people expect news to be "free"...
just like *information*!).

When people stop paying for a "thing" (service/product),
you have to wonder if that product will stop being
*available*.

I recently finished reading _The Price of Everything_ which
addresses many of these sorts of issues (including the
music downloading issue). I never cease to be amazed at
how differently economists (the author is one) view and
*rationalize* the world! E.g., male-female relationships
explained as financial transactions (!).

<shudder>

Regardless, it was an interesting (quick) read that I
would heartily recommend to anyone with an interest
in these issues.

(I'm now reading _The Art of Choosing_ which has a different
focus and flavor. But, equally interesting in the issues
raised)

[Don Y]

On 5/24/2012 11:41 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:
> Richard Webb writes:
>
>> YOu wouldn't ask your plumber, electrician, or the guy who
>> fixes your lunch to provide you with his goods and services
>> for free.
>
> Tradesmen don't do what they do for pleasure; they do it to earn a living.
> Their work isn't fun.

That seems to paint everyone with the same broad brush!
Just because you do something to earn a living doesn't
mean it isn't (or CAN'T be) pleasurable!

I look *forward* to my "job" each day. I can't imagine
doing anything more rewarding and enjoyable with my
time. The fact that I get *paid* to do it is just
icing on the cake!

I.e., "retirement" will see no change in how I
go about my days -- except for the trips to the bank!

> Artists do what they do for pleasure; asking to be guaranteed
> a living from it is asking too much. If you don't like the revenue
> you earn from art, find another line of work.

If you don't like the *cost* (price) of that art, BUY SOMETHING
ELSE. Like *shoes*!

> Nobody needs art, but everybody needs reliable plumbing and wiring.

I won't even *touch* this comment. <shudder>

<frown>

[Don Y]

On 5/24/2012 11:24 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:
> Arny Krueger writes:
>
>> If that were a global rule, it would greatly limit the complexity and
>> innovation of products.
>
> I'd rather have a product that works than a product that is complex and
> innovative.

OK, next time you have an unexplained headache, ask the doctor to XRAY
your head -- since that fancy MRI machine is *way* too complex and
innovative! Especially compared to radiation penetrating living tissue!

>> Your washing machine is a relatively simplistic machine in terms of basic
>> function and operation.
>
> More importantly, it was designed and built to not have any significant
> defects before it was sold to the public.

Really? Have you looked at modern appliances? We went looking for
a refrigerator to replace our 20yr old unit (which still works
fine -- she just wants a different color). So, we're looking
in the $2K-$3K range in terms of features, etc.

Ask the salesman what sort of life expectancy we can see from
that "investment". Of course, we're expecting some highly
inflated number conditioned with all sorts of caveats ("If
you keep the condenser coils clean, have stable power,
only let little old ladies drive it on the weekends -- and
*only* to church -- then you can expect...").

You could have heard my jaw hit the floor when he matter-of-factly
replied: "Four to seven years".

"$50/month? And this purchase is going to SAVE ME $5/month
on my utility bill? Do people actually *buy* them? Are
any of those people NOT wearing white coats with arms that
tie in the back??"

>> Compare and contrast your washing machine with say a robot that does
>> delicate and precise assembly tasks or a nuclear reactor.
>
> Or a software product, which is probably the most defective and least reliable
> product imaginable.

You've never experienced good software! You're a typical consumer who
doesn't demand (nor EXPECT) much from the software you use. How is
that the fault of the software providers that you patronize?

[Steve King]

"Mike Rivers" <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:jplrb0$8tj$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 5/24/2012 3:57 AM, Don Y wrote:

Big SNIP of really cogent stuff...

> I remember a British short subject where an artist hauled a large sheet of
> plywood, a ladder, and several buckets of paint to the seashore, proceeded
> to dribble paint on the plywood in what seemed like random patterns (both
> the patterns and the way he was spreading the paint). After it dried, he
> took out a saw and cut the sheet up into about a dozen "paintings." His
> customer came by, picked out two or three, paid the artist, who, after the
> customer left, tossed the rest of the pieces of painted plywood into the
> ocean.

I'm so glad that you reminded me of this film. I'm sure it was forty years
ago that I first saw it. I think it was entitled, simply, "The Painter".
It was terrific. Wonderfully shot. He stood on a small dock with the
plywood on the gravel or sand below him at the edge of the sea. I've
recalled the film many times in workshops, improv classes, and other
occasions to illustrate how the painter made the art, not when he poured or
spattered the paint, but when he chose where to make the saw cuts. The
principle works for writing, acting, lots of stuff.

Steve King

[Steve King]

"Don Y" <th...@isnotme.com> wrote in message
news:jpm2uv$nsl$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> Hi Mike,

>
>
> Should the "one hit wonder" be able to live, forever, off his
> *one* success?
>

If its penicillin, you bet your ass. Or, the telephone, or the cotton gin,
or the TV remote control;-)

Steve King

[Steve Hawkins]

Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:klvsr7d2316eiek1a...@4ax.com:

<snip>

> I'm not a musician, although I've produced other types of copyrighted
> works.

That's better known as "not knowing what you're talking about", 'nuff said.

Steve Hawkins

[Les Cargill]

The combine harvester was deemed too important
to patent, and the patent was denied.

--
Les Cargill

[Mxsmanic]

Don Y writes:

> OK, next time you have an unexplained headache, ask the doctor to XRAY
> your head -- since that fancy MRI machine is *way* too complex and
> innovative!

Bad example. MRI machines actually work, so it is not necessary to choose
between complex/innovative and functional, in that case.

> Really? Have you looked at modern appliances?

Not recently. My 20-plus-year-old appliances still work.

> We went looking for
> a refrigerator to replace our 20yr old unit (which still works
> fine -- she just wants a different color). So, we're looking
> in the $2K-$3K range in terms of features, etc.

I can buy a new refrigerator for about $299. It will probably work for at
least 20 years.

> You've never experienced good software!

I have, but rarely. It's not something one sees every day. It's much more
common for system software than for application software, and vastly more
common on mainframes (which I don't use) than on desktops or servers (although
server software tends to be much more reliable than desktop software).

> You're a typical consumer who doesn't demand (nor EXPECT) much from
> the software you use.

I don't recall describing what type of consumer I am.

> How is that the fault of the software providers that you patronize?

Desktop software publishers care only about getting the next release out the
door, so that they can maintain often-unrealistic revenue streams. As a
result, they publish untested, poorly designed, poorly coded, bloated software
that is often awash in bugs. Users have been conditioned to accept this,
whereas manufacturers in other industries providing the same barely-functional
level of quality would be rapidly drawn and quartered.

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Hawkins writes:

> That's better known as "not knowing what you're talking about", 'nuff said.

Copyright works the same for everyone.

[Mxsmanic]

Steve King writes:

> If its penicillin, you bet your ass. Or, the telephone, or the cotton gin,
> or the TV remote control;-)

Jonas Salk disagreed.

[Mxsmanic]

Don Y writes:

> That seems to paint everyone with the same broad brush!

No, but there are fundamental differences between what I call artists and the
rest of society. Artists are doing something they love to do, which is fine,
but it doesn't come with a built-in guarantee that they'll be able to earn a
living doing it. That's the trade-off that artists have to live with.

Coal miners don't generally enjoy their jobs, but they do essential work that
society needs to have done, and their only compensation is money.

> Just because you do something to earn a living doesn't
> mean it isn't (or CAN'T be) pleasurable!

Absolutely, but if you don't succeed in making any money, you're not really in
a position to complain.

> If you don't like the *cost* (price) of that art, BUY SOMETHING
> ELSE. Like *shoes*!

Done.

> I won't even *touch* this comment.

It's self-evident.

[MarkK]

>
> YOu want music for free? Create your own damned music! NO
> talent, too bad.
>
>

that's what the RADIO is for...

once a song has been played on the radio, I am allowed to make a copy of it
and listen to it for free.

Mark

[Trevor]

"Arny Krueger" <ar...@cocmast.net> wrote in message
news:jLWdnWu60qV6uyPS...@giganews.com...

> "Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:941sr7hlak0i8g4in...@4ax.com...

>> Any product that requires good support is defective.

>> My washing machine doesn't require good support, because it doesn't
>> break down to begin with.

Most do if you keep them long enough, instead of throwing them away when
they break down. I've repaced a solenoid and timer in my 20YO one, and
consider it to be extremely reliable. I know other people who are not so
lucky with their chosen brand however.

> Your washing machine is a relatively simplistic machine in terms of basic
> function and operation.
>
> Compare and contrast your washing machine with say a robot that does
> delicate and precise assembly tasks or a nuclear reactor.

Or even the average motor car.

Trevor.

[Rick Ruskin]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 20:32:08 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Regardless of motives, talent, or any other qualifier one cares to
mention, the owner of a copyright should get compensated for the use
of said copyright.


Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://www.liondogmusic.com

[Rick Ruskin]

Even if trivial song gets used, the copyright owner & composers should
get paid as long as the law allows.

[Rick Ruskin]

False. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combine_harvester#History

[Rick Ruskin]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 13:37:43 -0400, Mike Rivers <mri...@d-and-d.com>
wrote:

>On 5/24/2012 5:54 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> I can think of two good ideas: (1) make the term of copyright 14 years again,
>> non-renewable; and (2) make it illegal to transfer any copyrights to
>> anyone--the author keeps the copyrights until they expire (this is already
>> true for "moral rights," where they exist, but not commercial rights).
>

That's way too short a time. A copyright may languish for a long
period before anyone takes any commercial interest. The
writer/composer should have copyright for at least the rest of his or
her natural life.

[Rick Ruskin]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 20:29:51 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>Where is the artist in all this? Why does simply distributing a song deserve
>the lion's share of the revenue it generates?

Composers get 50% of any and all revenues if publishing rights are
signed away to a 3rd party.

[Rick Ruskin]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 20:35:15 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>I'm not a musician, although I've produced other types of copyrighted works.

And you'd have no problem with someone using your copyrighted material
without compensating you for it?

[Les Cargill]

"When McCormick tried to renew his patent in 1848, the US Patent Office
noted that a similar machine had already been patented by Obed Hussey a
few months earlier. McCormick claimed he had really invented his
machine in 1831, but the renewal was denied.[7] William Manning of
Plainfield, New Jersey had received a patent for his reaper in May
1831, but at the time, Manning was evidently not defending his
patent.[5]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_McCormick

that reading is pretty much balderdash. It was mostly politics.

I've read multiple sources which claimed that there was a significant
interest in the potential monopoly on McCormick's version. Due to the
bandwidth required for cat pictures, they're long gone.

To wit:

http://www.nytimes.com/1861/07/06/news/the-mccormick-reaper-patent.html

Perhaps I confuse McCormick's reaper with a combine; I am not all that
sure what the functional differences are.

They hadda get them rubes into Nebraska at all cost...


--
Les Cargill

[John Williamson]

Omit "at least", and make it illegal to transfer the commercial rights
to a third party.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Mxsmanic]

Trevor writes:

> Most do if you keep them long enough, instead of throwing them away when
> they break down.

They break down because of wear and tear. But software doesn't wear out, so it
should work forever. And it can, if it's free of bugs, but hardly anyone takes
the time and care to write bug-free software these days.

[Mxsmanic]

Rick Ruskin writes:

> Composers get 50% of any and all revenues if publishing rights are
> signed away to a 3rd party.

If they relinquish their copyrights, they may get nothing. Even if they don't,
it depends on the type of contract they sign. In most jurisdictions, including
the United States, there is no statutory requirement for any specific level of
compensation for transfer of copyrights or licensing, except for mandatory
minimums for licensing of music covers.

Some jurisdictions place limits on the transfer of rights (e.g., moral rights,
although the U.S. doesn't recognize that concept), or place maximum durations
on licensing or assignment of copyrights, etc.

[Mxsmanic]

Rick Ruskin writes:

> That's way too short a time.

It's plenty. Life is tough.

> A copyright may languish for a long period before anyone takes
> any commercial interest.

If that is the case, then the work isn't worth licensing to begin with.

But some jurisdictions do start counting with the date of first publication,
not the date of creation.

> The writer/composer should have copyright for at least the rest of his or
> her natural life.

No. The writer or composer should learn to work for a living like everyone
else. Nobody else is allowed to work once, and earn for a lifetime. Why should
a writer or composer get this special free ride?

[Mxsmanic]

Rick Ruskin writes:

> Regardless of motives, talent, or any other qualifier one cares to
> mention, the owner of a copyright should get compensated for the use
> of said copyright.

Yes, for a limited time. Like 14 years, not 150.

[Mxsmanic]

Rick Ruskin writes:

> Even if trivial song gets used, the copyright owner & composers should
> get paid as long as the law allows.

Yes. And the law should allow fourteen years.

[Mxsmanic]

Rick Ruskin writes:

> And you'd have no problem with someone using your copyrighted material
> without compensating you for it?

In some cases, yes. Some of my work isn't really worth anything in my view,
and sometimes the work didn't require enough creativity or effort to morally
justify demanding payment in my view. If it was a significant effort that I
think has potential commercial value, I'd like to be paid for it, but I don't
have the ego or the greed to chase down every single infringement or spend my
days looking for infringements. I do know of a couple of commercial
infringements on my copyrights but I have not thus far bothered to do anything
about them.

I suppose if I had an ego the size of a planet, or if I could not tolerate the
thought of even leaving a few nickels or dimes on the table, I'd go around
suing every infringer I could find, and of course the law would back me up on
that. But I don't have much ego, whereas I have a strong conscience, strong
ethics, and a strong moral sense.

[Mxsmanic]

MarkK writes:

> once a song has been played on the radio, I am allowed to make a copy of it
> and listen to it for free.

That would depend on your jurisdiction. And of course, music on the radio
isn't played for free, it's just that you're not the one paying for it (the
radio station pays performance royalties). The artist still gets paid (a
little).

[Trevor]

"John Williamson" <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:a28jut...@mid.individual.net...

>>>> I can think of two good ideas: (1) make the term of copyright 14 years
>>>> again,
>>>> non-renewable; and (2) make it illegal to transfer any copyrights to
>>>> anyone--the author keeps the copyrights until they expire (this is
>>>> already
>>>> true for "moral rights," where they exist, but not commercial rights).
>>
>> That's way too short a time. A copyright may languish for a long
>> period before anyone takes any commercial interest. The
>> writer/composer should have copyright for at least the rest of his or
>> her natural life.
>>
>>
> Omit "at least", and make it illegal to transfer the commercial rights to
> a third party.

I'd like to see them do the same with land rights, mineral rights etc. At
least the US still has death duties though, we don't. People in Aust. would
rather pay more tax while they are alive than when they die for some reason.

Trevor.

[Mike Rivers]

On 5/24/2012 2:29 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:

> The essential thing
> is that the artist should keep final control of his work--and by making it
> illegal for him to transfer his rights to anyone else, it becomes impossible
> for companies like multimedia labels to force him into giving up his
> copyrights.

Nobody is forced to give up his copyright. The artist always
has a choice of not working with a record company who wants
to own his songs. But sometimes it's a good business
decision for the artist because it gives them exposure that
they wouldn't be able to get any other way. But once you're
big enough and have enough money, you can exercise more
control. Dolly Parton, for example, commissions her own
recordings, manages the sessions, and retains all rights.
She doesn't seem to have any problem getting her records
out. But for the small artist who may only get a dribble of
royalties without a big kick from a record label, selling
his soul is good business.

You just can't generalize about these things. Hank Williams
sold "Your Cheating Hear" for $50 when he needed a drink.

> They need to find a business model that involves producing something of their
> own, instead of just riding on the backs of content creators.

This is the way private labels operate, and today it's
easier and more possible than ever. With no manufacturing or
distribution cost, and the possibility of very low recording
cost, anyone can be an independent artist making and selling
his own music. But how many independent musicians do you
know who are making, say $50,000/year from their own
recordings? I know musicians who are indeed making a living
at it, but even getting 100% of the revenue from selling
their music, they need to supplement it with real work like
doing school concerts, tours, and, yes, selling songs to
others.

> People in money industries are exceptional in that their "industries" do not
> actually produce anything, but instead just shift money around, taking a
> percentage with each shift. They are a pox on society, and a growing one.

But they bring us things like Google and Facebook, for
better or worse. And some people who are selling their music
independently depend on such industries.

> Where is the artist in all this? Why does simply distributing a song deserve
> the lion's share of the revenue it generates?

Because if it isn't widely and aggressively distributed,
there won't be enough sales to matter. Maybe a patron will
pay a painter $50,000 for a commissioned artwork that he can
hang on his wall. He enjoys it himself and shares it with
visitors, but who's going to pay a songwriter $50,000 for a
song and just keep it for himself?



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Mike Rivers]

On 5/24/2012 2:32 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:

> My guess is for the vast majority of songwriters and musicians, they'd be
> doing exactly the same thing even if they never made a penny from it. In fact,
> a lot of them are already doing just that (even a few who have successful
> songs).

This is true. But there's a difference between a business
and a hobby (ask the IRS!). Nobody's telling them to stop
writing songs and leave it to "the professionals."